«

After recent discussions here on the capacity of this system I decided
to find out some details.

First In Aug 2000 these where circuit costs as quoted in an article on
internet.com
[Sydney, AUSTRALIA] Southern Cross Cable Network has reduced the base
prices for its trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman bandwidth services by 20
percent, which are due to be operational by November 15.

The base price for a 15 year 155Mb connection between Australasia and
the U.S. has been reduced from $20.6 million to $16.6 million (US $12.9
million to US $10.4 million). Connections from Hawaii to the U.S. have
been reduced from $2.2 million to $1.8 million (US $1.4 million to US
$1.1 million) and between Australia and New Zealand from $6.6 million to
$5.2 million (US $4.1 million to US $3.28 million).

This is the Cableoperators web site (noted it is designed for broadband
users slow as **** on dial up)
http://www.southerncrosscables.com/

Interesting to note that it is 480Gb except for the sections from
Hawahii to the US where it is 640Gb

In the NZ Sections (two of) there are 3 Fibre pairs allowing 16 wave
lengths per pair (3 x16 = 4 with a bit rate of 10 Gbits/s.

The SX is actually a ring main, comprising two loops nz-aus and
nz-hawaii with a link between both loops at Hawahii and then two links
to the USA, sort of a figure eight arrangement.

Capacity on the cable is sold in a number of different configurations eg
1 loop/1circuit 2drop/1circuit and so on.

Because capacity is sold to a wide range of customers in
NZ/Aust/Hawahii/Mainland USA it is incorrect to assume that 480
gbits.sec is available in NZ for our use. I have not as yet found a
figure that indicates how much is available in NZ

Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
major partner though.
Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
That said the folowing must also be noted..
Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity purchasers?
A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in capacity
purchases on this basis.
The cost of constructing the Southern Cross Cable Network, including
project management and financing costs, and including the equipping
level achieved for 240 Gbit/s, was approximately US $1.3 billion.

Collector_NZ wrote:

> Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
> major partner though.
> Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
> Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).

If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:

Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
Gates doesn't own Microsoft

I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
gives you complete control and ownership.

Collector_NZ wrote:
> After recent discussions here on the capacity of this system I decided
> to find out some details.
>
> First In Aug 2000 these where circuit costs as quoted in an article on
> internet.com
> [Sydney, AUSTRALIA] Southern Cross Cable Network has reduced the base
> prices for its trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman bandwidth services by 20
> percent, which are due to be operational by November 15.
>
> The base price for a 15 year 155Mb connection between Australasia and
> the U.S. has been reduced from $20.6 million to $16.6 million (US $12.9
> million to US $10.4 million). Connections from Hawaii to the U.S. have
> been reduced from $2.2 million to $1.8 million (US $1.4 million to US
> $1.1 million) and between Australia and New Zealand from $6.6 million to
> $5.2 million (US $4.1 million to US $3.28 million).
>
> This is the Cableoperators web site (noted it is designed for broadband
> users slow as **** on dial up)
> http://www.southerncrosscables.com/
>
> Interesting to note that it is 480Gb except for the sections from
> Hawahii to the US where it is 640Gb
>
> In the NZ Sections (two of) there are 3 Fibre pairs allowing 16 wave
> lengths per pair (3 x16 = 4 with a bit rate of 10 Gbits/s.
>
> The SX is actually a ring main, comprising two loops nz-aus and
> nz-hawaii with a link between both loops at Hawahii and then two links
> to the USA, sort of a figure eight arrangement.
>
> Capacity on the cable is sold in a number of different configurations eg
> 1 loop/1circuit 2drop/1circuit and so on.
>
> Because capacity is sold to a wide range of customers in
> NZ/Aust/Hawahii/Mainland USA it is incorrect to assume that 480
> gbits.sec is available in NZ for our use. I have not as yet found a
> figure that indicates how much is available in NZ
>
> Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
> major partner though.
> Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
> Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
> That said the folowing must also be noted..
> Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
> purchasers?
> A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
> costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
> Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
> other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in capacity
> purchases on this basis.
> The cost of constructing the Southern Cross Cable Network, including
> project management and financing costs, and including the equipping
> level achieved for 240 Gbit/s, was approximately US $1.3 billion.

Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..

Anyway yes its possible telecom are selling dedicated bandwidth to
american companies or australian companies and nz might not have access
to all 480 gbits but with that amount i don't really think there is
shortage and if telecom own 50% then obviously nz could get its hands on
248 gbits drool...

be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
internation bandwidth


"Carriers' carrier, Nava Networks has appointed Fujitsu of Japan to
supply cable for a new submarine fiber system linking Singapore;
Jakarta, Indonesia; and Sydney, Australia.

When it goes live, the 9000 km Nava-1 network will have a potential
aggregate capacity of 2.56 Tbps.

"Nava-1 will be the first Terabit-class system linking Singapore,
Indonesia, and Australia," said Brett O'Riley, director of sales and
marketing at Nava Networks. "It will also provide the first
multi-terabit cable directly linking the major Australian cities of
Perth and Melbourne."

The repeatered system will use four fiber pairs, each carrying 64x10
Gbps channels. Construction will begin in the second quarter of 2001,
with completion expected by July 2002."

Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 13:55:
> Collector_NZ wrote:
>
>
>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
>>major partner though.
>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
>
>
> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
>
> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
>
> I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
> gives you complete control and ownership.
>
Failed again to read the whole posted didnt you.

"That said the folowing must also be noted..
Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity purchasers?
A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in capacity
purchases on this basis."

Just the keep providing the evidence of your halfwitted brain.

Collector_NZ wrote:

> Harry said the following on 19/10/2004 13:55:
>> Collector_NZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
>>>major partner though.
>>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
>>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
>>
>>
>> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
>>
>> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
>> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
>> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
>> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
>>
>> I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
>> gives you complete control and ownership.
>>
> Failed again to read the whole posted didnt you.
>
> "That said the folowing must also be noted..
> Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
> purchasers? A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the
> associated costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make.
> However, the Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same
> basis as other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in
> capacity purchases on this basis."
>
> Just the keep providing the evidence of your halfwitted brain.

You said:

"Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"

Did you not?
Or are you saying that you said that, but meant something else?

BTW I read the whole post, but I wasn't talking about the whole
post - I was talking about your:

"Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom"

So there - Mr aka Collector_NZ.

Hmmm wrote:
> Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
> Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
> cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
> completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..

It heads north to Asia.

> be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
> internation bandwidth

at one point a while ago it was cheaper if you had Telstra as an
upstream to route via Oz and back to NZ for "domestic" traffic.

--
Dave Hall
http://www.dave.net.nz
http://www.karyn.net.nz

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
> Hmmm wrote:
>
>> Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
>> Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
>> cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
>> completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..
>
>
> It heads north to Asia.

Yeah sorry i didnt mean it was from nz to australia.. was just meaning
that if we are well connected to australia with the southern cross and
the cables are interconnected there, then there is probably loads of
bandwidth out of australasia, i just read about yet another cable from
australia to japan that is being completed...

>
>> be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
>> internation bandwidth
>
>
> at one point a while ago it was cheaper if you had Telstra as an
> upstream to route via Oz and back to NZ for "domestic" traffic.

Heh bizzare but believable, wouldnt be so great for latency dependant
applications such as gaming though hehe
>

Harry wrote:
> Collector_NZ wrote:
>
>
>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
>>major partner though.
>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
>
>
> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
>
> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
>
> I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
> gives you complete control and ownership.
>

50% gives you half ownership and no control.

51% will give you total control and essentially the same ownership as 50%.

Ripping Silk wrote:

> Harry wrote:
>> Collector_NZ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
>>>major partner though.
>>>Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
>>>Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
>>
>>
>> If having a 50% share isn't owning something then:
>>
>> Murdoch doesn't own News Corp
>> Aust govt doesn't own Telstra
>> Sing govt doesn't own SingTel
>> Gates doesn't own Microsoft
>>
>> I think, by all reasonable definitions, having a 50% share
>> gives you complete control and ownership.
>>
>
> 50% gives you half ownership and no control.

No, it gives you complete control.
Because you are the largest shareholder and by making an alliance
(even temporary) with 1 other shareholder you have all voting power.

And you can completely block anyone else having control.

But only a genius like myself can figure that one out.

>
> 51% will give you total control and essentially the same ownership as 50%.

Even less than 50% nearly always gives you complete control.

Hmmm wrote:
> Collector_NZ wrote:
>
>> After recent discussions here on the capacity of this system I decided
>> to find out some details.
>>
>> First In Aug 2000 these where circuit costs as quoted in an article on
>> internet.com
>> [Sydney, AUSTRALIA] Southern Cross Cable Network has reduced the base
>> prices for its trans-Pacific and trans-Tasman bandwidth services by 20
>> percent, which are due to be operational by November 15.
>>
>> The base price for a 15 year 155Mb connection between Australasia and
>> the U.S. has been reduced from $20.6 million to $16.6 million (US
>> $12.9 million to US $10.4 million). Connections from Hawaii to the
>> U.S. have been reduced from $2.2 million to $1.8 million (US $1.4
>> million to US $1.1 million) and between Australia and New Zealand from
>> $6.6 million to $5.2 million (US $4.1 million to US $3.28 million).
>>
>> This is the Cableoperators web site (noted it is designed for
>> broadband users slow as **** on dial up)
>> http://www.southerncrosscables.com/
>>
>> Interesting to note that it is 480Gb except for the sections from
>> Hawahii to the US where it is 640Gb
>>
>> In the NZ Sections (two of) there are 3 Fibre pairs allowing 16 wave
>> lengths per pair (3 x16 = 4 with a bit rate of 10 Gbits/s.
>>
>> The SX is actually a ring main, comprising two loops nz-aus and
>> nz-hawaii with a link between both loops at Hawahii and then two links
>> to the USA, sort of a figure eight arrangement.
>>
>> Capacity on the cable is sold in a number of different configurations
>> eg 1 loop/1circuit 2drop/1circuit and so on.
>>
>> Because capacity is sold to a wide range of customers in
>> NZ/Aust/Hawahii/Mainland USA it is incorrect to assume that 480
>> gbits.sec is available in NZ for our use. I have not as yet found a
>> figure that indicates how much is available in NZ
>>
>> Contrary to popular belief SX is not owned by Telecom, Telcom are a
>> major partner though.
>> Southern Cross is an independent entity and is owned by Telecom New
>> Zealand (50%), Optus (40%) and MCI (10%).
>> That said the folowing must also be noted..
>> Q: What advantages do the Shareholders have compared to capacity
>> purchasers?
>> A: The Shareholders have the opportunity - along with the associated
>> costs and risk - of sharing profits, which SCCL may make. However, the
>> Shareholders purchase their capacity requirements on the same basis as
>> other customers, and each has made a significant commitment in
>> capacity purchases on this basis.
>> The cost of constructing the Southern Cross Cable Network, including
>> project management and financing costs, and including the equipping
>> level achieved for 240 Gbit/s, was approximately US $1.3 billion.
>
>
> Interesting I also read about this cable which offers 2.56 Tbps to
> Australia.. and is interconnected with other submarine cables, but
> cannot find information on whether its live or not, was due for
> completion in 2002. but damn thats a fast cable..
>
> Anyway yes its possible telecom are selling dedicated bandwidth to
> american companies or australian companies and nz might not have access
> to all 480 gbits but with that amount i don't really think there is
> shortage and if telecom own 50% then obviously nz could get its hands on
> 248 gbits drool...
>
> be nice if australia was counted as domestic in terms of charging for
> internation bandwidth
>
>
> "Carriers' carrier, Nava Networks has appointed Fujitsu of Japan to
> supply cable for a new submarine fiber system linking Singapore;
> Jakarta, Indonesia; and Sydney, Australia.
>
> When it goes live, the 9000 km Nava-1 network will have a potential
> aggregate capacity of 2.56 Tbps.
>
> "Nava-1 will be the first Terabit-class system linking Singapore,
> Indonesia, and Australia," said Brett O'Riley, director of sales and
> marketing at Nava Networks. "It will also provide the first
> multi-terabit cable directly linking the major Australian cities of
> Perth and Melbourne."
>
> The repeatered system will use four fiber pairs, each carrying 64x10
> Gbps channels. Construction will begin in the second quarter of 2001,
> with completion expected by July 2002."
>
>

Its no faster than a dialup if all you send is 1 packet, its not speed
but capacity...2.56Tb is hefty.

regards

Thing